Big Mike 

I can't find the original post you are referring to, would you please use the report post feature on that post. Sent using the nexusfi.com mobile app

It was a post that quoted a post from Emmett Moore's site, not an expression of opinion on this site by a FIO member.

Al Brooks Trading Course (www.brookstradingcourse.com) Are we not suppose to mention Emmett's site? Crooked Hilary posted this on Emmett's site - you can go there and see I am including his exact post: " His attitude is not in alignment with what this forum stands for In other words he …

I think it is disgusting, and it makes me think there is something very wrong among some of those in this "debate", but it was not presented as as the view of the person who was passing it on. The context is that it had been referred to a few posts above, without being quoted.

Bob.

In this post, I am going to defend Al and show to his followers that there are actually legit reasons why a vendor wouldn't want to share his trading history. Unfortunately none of you have argued this so far...

So just as a thought exercise, let's list why a vendor who actually trades real money wouldn't want to prove it? Not necessarily to everyone and in detail, but to a trusted public person who can vouch for him. (If Emmett or Big Mike sees the trades, that is good enough for me.)

1. The account is really small. The vendor might be not proud that after 10 or whatever years he is still trading only a few contracts, when people expect him killing it and making it rain. The reasons for this could be plenty: risk aversion, psychologically not comfortable with large number of contracts, not having enough money to trade, etc.

2. The returns are very small. After all again, the public expect the vendor to do much better than the index, and if the vendor can't even outperform the index or let's just say makes a 8-10% annually, that can be done by much simpler methods (covered calls, etc) and no book reading, trading room or video study is needed.

3. The vendor can't even follow his own method. It is basically the case of being a better teacher than a trader. Do as I say, not as I do. Again, trying to cover that is understandable.

4. The strategy is not profitable in the long run. And here is where we get really interested. The pudding and its taste. The strategy might be good at certain times and conditions, but not all the time. The returns are all over the place.

5.It can be calculated that the vendor makes way more money by selling education than by trading. I actually don't have a problem with this. Let's say the vendor makes 80-100% on a 50K account, but 100K+ dollars with the subscriptions, videos, etc. Here even though the strategy makes excellent returns, there is a reason why the vendor isn't that proud to show it, because he wants to be seen as a trader first and an educator second.

6. A combination of the above.

7. None of our business. I have a problem with this. If you are trying to sell me a burger, I sure would like to know if you eat it yourself too, and find it tasty. Any vendor should have at least a small real money Show account where the strategy is proven to the public. If the vendor has a bigger private account beside that, fine, but the teachings and strategy should be backed by real life real money trades. Period.

I might have missed a few other legit reasons, but I would accept 1,2,3 and 5 as understandable and logical arguments, even if we would prefer our hero to do better. But giving us the bullshit "I legally can't show trades" argument is not going to fly...

Edit:

8. The vendor is only profitable because he gets an exceptionally low commission. If the strategy only works when you own a seat or trade thousands of contracts, that is prohibitive for most would be students. The strategy should be advertised as such, but usually isn't.

Zentrader2010 

Honestly guys - listen to yourselves ? I mean just because he won't, for clearly personal reasons that probably doesn't have jack to do with your speculation he is not transparent...I mean isn't his very transparent three Volume bible on technical analysis enough? He's very transparent video series enough proof he either A. Trades for a living B knows what he's talking about at the very least? I think you are just trying to bolster your own particular bias regarding his particular trading methodology. Is it vulpine analysts vs price action camps ? I mean to suggest a lot of traders are not benefiting greatly from his teachings and using it to become successful professionals to some degree or another is ludicrous thinking. How about this for Al Brooks reasons? 1. He's a modest guy and doesn't want to brag about just how much money he is making from trading alone. Probably way more then you lot I vouch as highly probable bet. 2. There is some legal reasons for it which is beyond your comprehension but ties him up as an advisor and he does not have the bit of paper that allows him to do so 3. On the off chance he is merely an academic which is fairly low bet - he was an Ophthalmologist and a pretty smart guy and I'm sure there are plenty of academic writings on trading which are very on the mark and useful 4. I bet most of you guys haven't even bothered to read his works? Am I right ? How can you sit in judgement ? 5. He is successful at what he does. He is naturally a target of lesser human beings who are just plain jealous that the only place they can find a place to publish their writings on is at a forum. Sent from my iPhone using NexusFi mobile app

1. He's a modest guy who brags about his trading ability but produces no proof. He's a modest guy who can't wait to tell you about his daughter in the Ivy League university. He's a modest guy, hold on a minute He's not a modest guy after all.

2. There is some legal reasons for it which is beyond your comprehension but ties him up which is absolute total BS so that can't be why he hasn't provided proof of his trading ability and the soundness of his method.

3. On the off chance he is merely an academic which is fairly low bet - but we all know that academics are physically incapable of downloading their brokerage statements so come on guys back off with the expectations that such a modest, humble, honest and honorable academic should prove what he claims.

4. I bet most of you guys haven't even bothered to read his works? Am I right ? How can you sit in judgement ? Geeze Louise asking for a vendor to provide proof of their marketing claims, calamity, catastrophe, the sky will fall in and the 7 horsemen will descend upon us if we dare to even dream of such a thing.

5. He is successful at what he does. He's told you often enough and long enough that he is so shut up and just believe him OK. Him saying it is proof enough OK!

I watched Al's video series, didn't care if he traded or not, actually didn't see/hear any claims before I choose to study his work.

It was such an insignificant amount of money, I mean really, if $300 busts your trading capital better you give it to Al than some fund manager.

After watching all of his videos and taking a book load of notes I went about systematically testing ideas and validating concepts. This is really what I wanted from the course, knowledge & ideas to test.

Whether it worked for Al or not was irrelevant to me, I view trading education the same as my professional continued education, I am happy to spend money on books / courses and expect to have to do the work myself to figure out it if will provide a profitable edge.

Even when starting trading I never considered vendor products greater than $1000 to be good value regardless of the promises or claims, I could see if you were willing to do the research there was plenty of free content & reasonably priced books.

Maybe I'm just not particularly altruistic about trading, but if someone is not willing to do their own research and carefully consider the value proposition of a vendors claim then there is probably not any way to help them.

amoeba 

I watched Al's video series, didn't care if he traded or not, actually didn't see/hear any claims before I choose to study his work. It was such an insignificant amount of money, I mean really, if $300 busts your trading capital better you give it to Al than some fund manager. After watching all of his videos and taking a book load of notes I went about systematically testing ideas and validating concepts. This is really what I wanted from the course, knowledge & ideas to test. Whether it worked for Al or not was irrelevant to me, I view trading education the same as my professional continued education, I am happy to spend money on books / courses and expect to have to do the work myself to figure out it if will provide a profitable edge. Even when starting trading I never considered vendor products greater than $1000 to be good value regardless of the promises or claims, I could see if you were willing to do the research there was plenty of free content & reasonably priced books. Maybe I'm just not particularly altruistic about trading, but if someone is not willing to do their own research and carefully consider the value proposition of a vendors claim then there is probably not any way to help them.

You're right $300 is nothing and education is the most valuable and important thing in trading but you're also missing the point. Should vendors who peddle their products through this site be required to provide proof that they trade and that their product does what they claim it does? That seems like a no brainer to me and I can't understand the amount of opposition to it. Another thing to consider is that while $300 is inconsequential to you and me it may not be to other people and if Al Brooks or any other vendor uses this site to get 100, 300 or a 1000 newbies to buy his product over the course of a year then the amount of money is not inconsequential and he should be required to provide proof of the claims he has made and continues to make.

arafg 

It is almost like the Trump Clinton election. Each side thinks they are right and the other side is the uncivil side. Yet this is a thread about Al Brook's Trading Course and if someone has the audacity to say Al needs to show proof they are banned. Yet no uncivil pro Al Brooks supporter is banned. I am not sure the real motives are about civility. I for one hope at the next Al Brook's webinar he is asked to produce evidence of his years of profitable ES scalping and lets see what his response is.

Does FIO stand for Forbid Individual Opinions?

Stray Dog 

You're right $300 is nothing and education is the most valuable and important thing in trading but you're also missing the point. Should vendors who peddle their products through this site be required to provide proof that they trade and that their product does what they claim it does? That seems like a no brainer to me and I can't understand the amount of opposition to it. Another thing to consider is that while $300 is inconsequential to you and me it may not be to other people and if Al Brooks or any other vendor uses this site to get 100, 300 or a 1000 newbies to buy his product over the course of a year then the amount of money is not inconsequential and he should be required to provide proof of the claims he has made and continues to make.

Perhaps it would make an interesting poll for the site.

I can see from the rest of this thread the core options would be something along;

- Presenters should be made to disclose trading performance before being allowed to share/promote.
- Presenters should NOT be required to disclose any trading performance.
- Presenters should disclose if they are EDUCATIONAL ONLY and not active traders.

amoeba 

Perhaps it would make an interesting poll for the site. I can see from the rest of this thread the core options would be something along; - Presenters should be made to disclose trading performance before being allowed to share/promote. - Presenters should NOT be required to disclose any trading performance. - Presenters should disclose if they are EDUCATIONAL ONLY and not active traders.

That's a very good summation of the last few days posts.

It would probably scare away most presenters though (which I recognize does raise concerns).

I personally still try to watch most webinars on FIO even if I have a considerably strong feeling against their methods or techniques.

This helps keep my bias in check and can confront me with new ideas and concepts to test and validate for myself, which I believe is really at the core of trading, you have to be constantly absorbing new ideas and willing to do the work to test, validate and either discard or absorb.

amoeba 

I watched Al's video series, didn't care if he traded or not, actually didn't see/hear any claims before I choose to study his work. It was such an insignificant amount of money, I mean really, if $300 busts your trading capital better you give it to Al than some fund manager. After watching all of his videos and taking a book load of notes I went about systematically testing ideas and validating concepts. This is really what I wanted from the course, knowledge & ideas to test. Whether it worked for Al or not was irrelevant to me, I view trading education the same as my professional continued education, I am happy to spend money on books / courses and expect to have to do the work myself to figure out it if will provide a profitable edge. Even when starting trading I never considered vendor products greater than $1000 to be good value regardless of the promises or claims, I could see if you were willing to do the research there was plenty of free content & reasonably priced books. Maybe I'm just not particularly altruistic about trading, but if someone is not willing to do their own research and carefully consider the value proposition of a vendors claim then there is probably not any way to help them.

In that case you will love this industry and the vendors will love you. Tons of vendors all with claims of their system making money who show no proof to sell you their products and you are eager to buy them. A win win. In fact a few are finally being shut down by the regulators thanks to Emmett finally exposing them like Sideways and Open Range Trader.

But I cannot help but think most people want to buy trading books from someone that can actually trade profitably. Maybe not.

And I will add you are right there are tons of vendors scamming people out of thousands of dollars for systems that do not work, and Al only charges a little bit in comparison. But does that make it OK. In fact taking a little money from a lot of people might be a more profitable adventure in the long run, well that was until a few people have finally called him out on his claims.

Gosh I hope this is considered a healthy discussion.

Reminds of Alice in Wonderland, where if you offended the Red Queen it was, "Off with Their Head". Here you now have to worry about making any posting and then it is, "You are Banned". No wonder so few will post under those conditions.